Pattern-or-Practice Civil Rights Violations in County Detention

AI-Enabled Surveillance, Attorney-Client Interference, and Retaliatory Digital Interference

---

Prepared by:
LeRoy Nellis
Austin, Texas
United States Citizen

Date: January 8, 2026

Recipients

• U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division (CRIPA)
• The Honorable Ron Wyden, United States Senate
• Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate
• Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate
• Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives
• Committee on Oversight and Accountability, U.S. House of Representatives
• Federal Communications Commission – Enforcement Bureau
• Attorney General of the United States
• Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
• Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Cover Letter

Re: Request for Pattern-or-Practice Investigation Under CRIPA — AI-Driven Surveillance, Attorney-Client Interference, and Digital Retaliation in County Detention

Dear Sir or Madam,

I respectfully submit this packet as a formal request for federal review and investigation into systemic civil-rights violations arising from the use of AI-enabled correctional technology systems deployed in county detention facilities.

• Interference with attorney-client communications
• Mass surveillance exceeding constitutional and statutory limits
• Retaliatory and unexplained digital interference temporally linked to detention, protected speech, and legal activity
• Psychological coercion and deprivation of meaningful access to counsel

Independent of my testimony, federal settlements, state lawsuits, and congressional inquiries already establish that these systems have recorded and disseminated privileged attorney-client communications in violation of federal law.

Respectfully,

/s/ LeRoy Nellis
LeRoy Nellis
January 8, 2026

Index

• Executive Summary
• Complainant Statement & Jurisdiction
• Sworn Testimony of Observed Facts
• Systemic Evidence (Non-Testimonial)
• Legal Framework & Violations
• Basis for CRIPA Pattern-or-Practice Jurisdiction
• Requested Government Actions
• Attestation
• Appendices A–E

Executive Summary

This packet documents pattern-or-practice civil-rights violations associated with AI-driven correctional surveillance systems performing continuous interception, biometric analysis, behavioral inference, data federation, and automated escalation.

Complainant Statement & Jurisdiction

I was a pretrial detainee housed in a county detention facility utilizing AI-enabled correctional communication systems. I was not convicted at the time of the conduct described.

Sworn Testimony of Observed Facts

Attorney-Client Interference: Attorney communications were routed through systems later confirmed by federal settlement to have recorded privileged calls.

Digital Interference: I experienced persistent, unexplained interference with digital accounts and communications correlated with legal activity and protected speech.

Systemic Evidence (Non-Testimonial)

Public patents and settlements demonstrate that these violations are structural and not isolated incidents.

Legal Framework & Violations

• Federal Wiretap Act (settlement confirmed)
• ECPA / Stored Communications Act
• Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
• State wiretap and privacy laws
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Requested Government Actions

• Open a CRIPA pattern-or-practice investigation
• Subpoena vendor-county contracts and system logs
• Audit attorney-client privilege protections
• Investigate retaliation for protected activity

Attestation

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ LeRoy Nellis
January 8, 2026